"Arity" is a term used in mathematics to denote the number of elements an ordered set contains. I am using it in a slightly different capacity, namely to denote the number of reconciled observations a "phrase" is based on. I am struggling with the language a bit and am just using whatever makes do to express what I have in mind.
In math:
<a,b> would be 2-ary ordered set, that is, the arity is 2
<1,2,4> would be a 3-ary ordered set
and so on.
To identify a thing, is to establish a theory on which names refer to the thing in question.
To interpret a phrase, is to establish a theory on which phrases said phrase is equivalent to.
Interpretation naturally occurs between any two phrases. When two 1-arity phrases are interpreted to be equivalent in meaning, a 2-arity phrase results. This phrase can onwards be interpreted as being equivalent in meaning to another phrase. The act of interpretation, as such, results in a phrase of arity number equal to that of the arity of the two constituent phrases' arity numbers added together. No complications occur when phrases of different arity numbers are combined.
Dynamics establish laws on the level of phrases themselves....
Whereas Statics establish laws on the level of "phrases equivalent to eachother"; in other words on the level of phrases grouped together as having equivalent meanings.
Thing = noumenom, reference
Name = phenomenom, sense
Every phrase consists of a noun-phrase and a verb-phrase. The former signifies Perception in socionics, the latter Judgment.
The former signifies the "phenomenom" and indirectly the "noumenom" that the "phenomenom" refers to.
The latter signifies a certain dividing line on either side of which said phenomenom/noumenom lies.
....
The notion of a "one-dimensional scale" is important somehow.
Both the two areas on the scale can be refered to with a word.Code:-------|------- <- P J P ->
To express the divide itself in language, however, a word does not suffice. A phrase must be used instead.
Assuming an artificial reality in which the only difference between apples and oranges is that the former are red whereas the latter are not.Code:------------|------------- <- Apple | Orange -> red/not red
The word "apple" refers to the left side of the divide. The word "orange" refers to the right side of the divide.
The divide itself is made evident when the following phrase is spoken: "apples are red".
[Apples][are red].
[Perception][Judgment].
But... these things are said of things that are observed in an immediate way: phenomena. To express Judgment on noumena, phrases like these need to be combined; interpreted. For some odd reason, the "limiting/empowering" quality of judgment FLIPS when this is done.
Reply With Quote
